Kodak ‘Investigating What it Would Take’ to Bring Back Kodachrome

[MattKing]

Ektachrome uses chemicals to cause the film to reverse.
Kodachrome needs light.
Kodachrome chemicals basically need a chemical technician/chemist on staff.
Ektachrome chemicals can be bought off the shelf.
JOBOs won't do the job.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

This thread is a bit unfocused and wavering because multiple issues are being discussed:

1. Processing of existing Kodachrome

2. Reintroduction of Kodachrome in same form as original, with consequent processing.

3. Introduction of a new "Kodachrome", materially different from the old K-14 type, and consequent processing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You keep forgetting the huge lack of interest in the buying public.

And as PE has said, Kodachrome is a difficult film to make. Remember?

There is a great plethora of lack of interest in Kodachrome.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Ektachrome uses chemicals to cause the film to reverse.
Kodachrome needs light.
Kodachrome chemicals basically need a chemical technician/chemist on staff.
Ektachrome chemicals can be bought off the shelf.
JOBOs won't do the job.

Added to that Kodachrome uses more chemical stages (and that's before you start counting the light re-exposures) than a 6-bath E6 process & needs the physical removal of remjet from the back of the film for the process to work

You can't cross process it in C-41 either.

 

[Photo Engineer]

NZoomed, where did you see the survey about Ektachrome? Were you questioned? Do we know anyone from APUG that was questioned? The decision for Ektachrome is as opaque as the decision for Kodachrome will probably be (or is). Marketing for nostalgia only works on old photographers!

PE

 

[cooltouch]

NZoomed, where did you see the survey about Ektachrome? Were you questioned? Do we know anyone from APUG that was questioned? The decision for Ektachrome is as opaque as the decision for Kodachrome will probably be (or is). Marketing for nostalgia only works on old photographers!
PE

Your comment reminded me of a Time Magazine article I read at their website just today. Time claims the resurgence in interest in film is being driven by young professionals. Read all about it:

http://time.com/4649188/film-photography-industry-comeback/

Kodachrome wasn't addressed specifically,but give 'em time. If Kodak can come up with a "friendlier" Kodachrome in terms of processing that still has its archival qualities, as well as its "look," it'll be back.

 

[Photo Engineer]

You did notice the emoji in my post Michael?

PE

 

[Nzoomed]

Perhaps Ferrania will come to the party with their kodachrome "compatible" film? lol

 

[keenmaster486]

So far only one person has claimed to have processed it at home. And wasn't even at home, it was at his photo lab. The quality was subpar according to him, but usable. He was willing to process a roll for a fee of $1000 per roll, and he wasn't joking about the price.

Have you been paying attention the last few weeks?

Kelly-Shane Fuller (a.k.a. piratelogy) is developing the stuff by hand for 25 bucks a roll.

 

[Nzoomed]

Kodachrome is dead. Kodak is not going to restart a product that a half dozen people will buy 2-3 rolls of per year.

Show me the statistics on where you find these figures?

There were thousands of rolls going to dwaynes before Kodak stopped its production...

Steve McCurry will be their biggest customer.

 

[MattKing]

Steve McCurry will be their biggest customer

If you get a chance to hear Steve McCurry speak some time, he is quite entertaining and informative.
But he is quite clear and matter of fact about it - he has no interest in going back to film. He really isn't into process - someone else at National Geographic does his post processing for him.
He enjoys the memories of Kodachrome, and appreciated the chance to shoot that last roll, but for what he does, he prefers digital now.

 

[RPC]

There were thousands of rolls going to dwaynes before Kodak stopped its production...

That statement doesn't carry a lot of weight since you don't mention a time frame. Was this over a period of years? One year? A month? A day?

Also, one must take into account what effect that Kodak announcing the end of production might have had on the volume, as well as the effect of people's expectations that the end of processing was surely to follow, and eventually the actual announcement that the processing would end. All would cause unusual spikes in volume as people world-wide rushed to use up their stocks that had sat in the freezer after they switched to E-6 or digital, or for other reasons, and get it processed.

 

[cooltouch]

As the resurgence in film use continues, it only makes sense that people will want to try different stuff. And Kodachrome will definitely be different stuff, so it might be easy to underestimate demand. I harken back to "Field of Dreams" -- if you make it, they will come (and buy some).

One of the things I always liked about Kodachrome was that I could always find it at the grocery or drug store. The same couldn't be said for Ektachrome or Fujichrome.

 

[Fredrik Sandstrom]

When there was still the Lausanne lab around Kodachrome was kinda practical. And I mean... kinda. If you did super8 it was the easiest choice. In 135 a more masochistic and expensive choice.
When it remained only in the USA it was just a big hassle and not worth it. Shipment was (is) expensive, slow, and I even had to fill a customs form (!).

My experience, here in Finland, is the complete opposite of what you describe. Right up until the very end, Kodachrome was the cheapest and most convenient way for me to shoot slides. Film was always sold with processing (and mounting) included, and the price was less than film+processing of most E6 films. Even after Lausanne stopped processing, you'd still send the film there, and they'd ship them in batches to Dwayne's. No customs hassles or additional costs for the customer. And super convenient: just drop it in the mail, and get it back in the mail a few weeks later.

 

[Wayne]

Don't try to divert this conversation with facts Matt. Next thing we know you'll be linking to that recent poll thread that showed even among APUG members a return of K******** has lukewarm support at best. A few dozen people.

What we need is a Kodachrome Support Group where the deluded can gather safely, free from reality.

 

[Cholentpot]

I dont think Kodak has quoted any film(s) in particular, but yes I agree, Im not sure what they intend to introduce, I had heard Plus-X and Pantatomic-X thrown around here. Obviously serious R&D would be required if banned chemicals exist in these films.

I agree the B&W market is flooded.

If Kodak concentrate on colour films, it would not bother me, I dont really shoot B&W anyway, but alot do.
There is tons of B&W films on the market, but very few choices for shooting in colour these days.

T-max and Tri-X are both popular B&W films anyway, I am really interested to know what Kodak do intend to reintroduce if its not a B&W film?

Perhaps they are looking at e100vs? That would be a big surprise if they did.

The future of film is B&W. You don't need a lab or a darkroom. Mixing up your own chems for it is pretty straight forward. It can do B&W better than digital not because of resolution but because it is instantly identifiable. It's archival and you can make easy prints from it at home.

Someday within my lifetime C-41 will either go extinct or become far too expensive or a hassle to shoot. B&W will stick around long after I'm gone.

 

[flavio81]

Guys,

We've reached the predicted 25 pages!!

Congratulations!! Achievement unlocked!!

Perhaps now we can come back to reality... A reality without the greens of summer, without the world looking as a sunny day...

 

[Cholentpot]

Guys,

We've reached the predicted 25 pages!!

Congratulations!! Achievement unlocked!!

Perhaps now we can come back to reality... A reality without the greens of summer, without the world looking as a sunny day...

Oh, Yeah.

 

[LAG]

We've reached the predicted 25 pages

I remember someone a few pages back predicting 40!!!

 

[Nzoomed]

The future of film is B&W. You don't need a lab or a darkroom. Mixing up your own chems for it is pretty straight forward. It can do B&W better than digital not because of resolution but because it is instantly identifiable. It's archival and you can make easy prints from it at home.

Someday within my lifetime C-41 will either go extinct or become far too expensive or a hassle to shoot. B&W will stick around long after I'm gone.

Not with Ferrania, it wont, colour will be here to stay!

 

[Nzoomed]

That statement doesn't carry a lot of weight since you don't mention a time frame. Was this over a period of years? One year? A month? A day?

Also, one must take into account what effect that Kodak announcing the end of production might have had on the volume, as well as the effect of people's expectations that the end of processing was surely to follow, and eventually the actual announcement that the processing would end. All would cause unusual spikes in volume as people world-wide rushed to use up their stocks that had sat in the freezer after they switched to E-6 or digital, or for other reasons, and get it processed.

Im talking about over a year, sorry should have clarified that.

Not to mention the frenzy that ensued after the announcement by Kodak...

 

[Nzoomed]

They have to actually release a color film first, don't they?

Thats happening this year!

 

[Diapositivo]

Ektachrome uses chemicals to cause the film to reverse.
Kodachrome needs light.
Kodachrome chemicals basically need a chemical technician/chemist on staff.
Ektachrome chemicals can be bought off the shelf.
JOBOs won't do the job.

Small contraptions like a JOBO CPP2 won't. But do you think it's impossible to make a small automatic lab, costing let's say 10.000 Euros, that is capable of doing the light exposure at the right time, with the right intensity?

A small lab but such that can be diffused in every town, thus eliminating the mail problem. Is that really unfeasible?

Of course, the volumes of slide film must climb very many times before somebody begins reasoning about a new Kodachrome. But that's just a market problem. Market aside - i.e. supposing for the sake of the argument that E-6 film sales are multiplied by 50 times and go back to their previous height, or maybe 25 times only - is it so difficult to make an automated developer for Kodachrome? That's my totally hypotetical question.

I know by myself that a multiplication of slide film by 25-50 times is extremely unlikely, naturally. But who knows?

 

[MattKing]

But do you think it's impossible to make a small automatic lab, costing let's say 10.000 Euros, that is capable of doing the light exposure at the right time, with the right intensity?

I do.
I expect that the final, "small" K-14 processors were extremely expensive - several hundreds of thousands of dollars if not in excess of a million dollars. Some of that cost may be due to the need to be able to develop movie film lengths.

 

[RPC]

Processors designed for any kind of volume are replenished for economy. If there isn't enough volume, developers go bad quickly as replenishment drops. This was a problem in recent years for the small one-hour minilabs that did color film. There would have to be enough Kodachrome volume to keep these processors from having the same problem. I think that would be a snowball's chance in hell.